Hi all,
Here's a draft response to Michael on [ISSUE-138], let me know what you
think. Note *this is just a draft, not the actual response* -- I'll
wait for feedback from the WG before replying formally to
Michael. (Michael if you're lurking on this list feel free to post your
thoughts at any time.)
Sean
Dear Michael
Thank you for your comments [1]:
"""
Such a kind of functional property characteristics distinguished by
language
tags cannot be expressed in OWL Full. I suggest to say this somewhere
in the
document.
Again, I want to hint you to rdf:text, in combination with OWL 2,
which is going
to allow for specifying data ranges consisting of all plain literals
having a
given language tag. A somewhat more general feature was the
resolution of
issue-71 of the OWL WG, accepting this proposal:
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/
0053.html>. But,
AFAICS, one would need to build a <=1-qualified cardinality
restriction (new
feature in OWL 2) on each such language-data range in order to
simulate a
functional property of the kind above. So this is probably all a bit
academic.
"""
-------------------------------------------------------------
As you point out, there are some constraints in the SKOS data model
that we are unable to express in OWL (some of these /may/ be
addressed by OWL 2, but in the current SKOS specification we are
avoiding reference to work in progress). In such cases, the
constraints are expressed in prose in the document.
Statements to this effect are made in Section 1.7.1 of the LC draft.
Do you feel these are sufficient, or do we need to further elaborate
this point?
Cheers,
Sean Bechhofer
Alistair Miles
[ISSUE-138] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/138
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Sep/0044.html
--
Sean Bechhofer
School of Computer Science
University of Manchester
sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.ukhttp://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/people/bechhofer